See attached file. 

This study reports aerosol characteristics from a remote site in the Tibetan Plateau.  The authors find seasonal variation in the aerosol composition and absorption properties.  The analysis is strengthened by the use of multiple complimentary analysis techniques, providing results of interest to the community. 

General comments:

• Throughout the manuscript, the authors note that many of the seasonal differences in the absorption properties are due to photobleaching (i.e. line 330, line 447). However, it is also possible that the aerosol sources are different between the seasons.  For example, you mention coal burning as an aerosol source in the winter, which is highly absorbing.  Can you comment on if you do expect different sources across seasons at this site?  Additionally, do you expect a role of non-absorbing SOA (such as biogenic SOA) to decrease the MAE in the summer. 
• It would be useful to add additional information on how to interpret the HIX and BIX results in section 3.3. It is clear that there are seasonal differences, however, further information on the importance of the differences would be useful.

Minor Comments:

• Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4: These sections should be renamed to something more informative
• Line 206: should this be nondispersive infrared gas detector?
• Line 226: This sentence is vague, was PMF run using PET2?
• Section 2.3.7: How often were trajectories initiated?
• Line 270: What are the percentage values for precipitation? Percent of days with precipitation?
• Line 283: It doesn’t seem that Ca²⁺ is that much higher in spring than fall, and it is not negligible even in summer and winter.  Is there other data to support increased mineral dust in spring, or is mineral dust present year round.
• Consider expanding the discussion in the paragraph starting at line 449. The combination of the EEM and PMF data is intriguing, however, I’m having trouble understanding this paragraph.  Can you provide details on what is meant by “correlation analysis”? Why is there no correlation seen with C4?
• Figure 2: It is difficult to see the time trends in the minor components due to the scale. Consider revising the figure to better show all the species, for example splitting the middle panel into two axes.

Typographical

There are several grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.  I recommend the authors carefully proofread the manuscript.  A few specific cases are listed below

Line 41: “…and strongly interacted with ambient conditions during transport” meaning of this sentence is unclear

Line 65: “Precipitation in the mountain areas, through aerosol-cloud interaction, is the major origination (Qi et al., 2022)” meaning is unclear

Line 278; NH⁴⁺ should be NH₄⁺